Spritual Terms defined?

[Dywyddyr]

That was just one example. All live beings have naural right to life, grow & personal liberty.

Really? How do you establish that?
This isn't a scientific proposition.
(What "right" do prey animals have to life if their predator also has that same "right" for example?)

Try to understand deeoly, logic,sense & science in these definitions with equanimity. You can get much. Simply base universal sense instead of specific sense.

You persist in saying this, yet consistently fail to show any logic or science to your claims.

Not derived from any specific religion but logically & somewhat scientifically thought.

Nope.

 

[KUMAR5]

Really? How do you establish that?
This isn't a scientific proposition.
(What "right" do prey animals have to life if their predator also has that same "right" for example?)


You persist in saying this, yet consistently fail to show any logic or science to your claims.


Nope.

Whether prey animals are created by nature just for a sole or inentional purpose of food to their predators?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Whether prey animals are created by nature just for a sole or inentional purpose of food to their predators?

What?
Nature doesn't "create things for a purpose", and you haven't addressed my actual question.
Predators kill prey animals. If they don't they die.
Which then, according to your view of nature (i.e. "All live beings have natural right to life"), is "wrong"?

 

[DaveC426913]

Not derived from any specific religion but logically & somewhat scientifically thought.

OK, let's take just two examples; the first two.

Prime Goddess: Anticipated Prime Force(Unified Forces) i.e. basis of all 4 fundamental forces.
Prime God: Anticipated prime particle of all 4 elementary particles. If manifested by Prime Force?

By what scientific logic do you equate a 'prime goddess' with 4 fun forces?
By what scientific logic do you equate a 'prime gods' with 4 elementary particles?

 

[DaveC426913]

Whether prey animals are created by nature just for a sole or inentional purpose of food to their predators?

I am pretty sure rabbits, antelope and insects would disagree with your assessment of their sole purpose.
I am pretty sure they believe that they too have "a natural right to life".

 

[Michael 345]

From the original post

Most are non existent from the atheist point of view

The rest are value judgements from any persons point of view and hence subjective

Insomuch as some points of view become generally accepted as a norm it may gain the status of law

Since laws do not cover all situations, and some situations may straddle more than one law and be disputed as to which law has a higher or better standard we have lawyers who will fight out the merits

If somebody is looking for a fixed absolute law standard, fixed value system or a fixed defining system you won't find any sorry

 

[KUMAR5]

What?
Nature doesn't "create things for a purpose", and you haven't addressed my actual question.
Predators kill prey animals. If they don't they die.
Which then, according to your view of nature (i.e. "All live beings have natural right to life"), is "wrong"?

They have natural right to live, other can have natural need to kill. It does not make either odd. It also contribute to maintain nature's balance.
"Live & let live" is said. It suggests let live subject to live.

 

[KUMAR5]

From the original post

Most are non existent from the atheist point of view

The rest are value judgements from any persons point of view and hence subjective

Insomuch as some points of view become generally accepted as a norm it may gain the status of law

Since laws do not cover all situations, and some situations may straddle more than one law and be disputed as to which law has a higher or better standard we have lawyers who will fight out the merits

If somebody is looking for a fixed absolute law standard, fixed value system or a fixed defining system you won't find any sorry

We can try discussing each term....whether they are defined absolutely, specifically or wrongly.

 

[KUMAR5]

OK, let's take just two examples; the first two.

Prime Goddess: Anticipated Prime Force(Unified Forces) i.e. basis of all 4 fundamental forces.
Prime God: Anticipated prime particle of all 4 elementary particles. If manifested by Prime Force?

By what scientific logic do you equate a 'prime goddess' with 4 fun forces?
By what scientific logic do you equate a 'prime gods' with 4 elementary particles?

I mentioned anticipated. It means, yet pending to know in science but logically there may be a mother or a father of all. Moreover, Unified Force is under check in science and if could be known its mediating particle should be taken as prime particle/God.

 

[Michael 345]

They have natural right to live, other can have natural need to kill. It does not make either odd. It also contribute to maintain nature's balance.
"Live & let live" is said. It suggests let live subject to live.

No no no. No organisms have any NATURAL RIGHTS OR ANYTHING ELSE NATURAL
RIGHT TO LIVE
RIGHT TO BE BIG
RIGHT TO BE GREEN

ANOTHER FALSEHOOD
THERE IS NO BALANCE IN NATURE TO MAINTAIN

We can try discussing each term....whether they are defined absolutely, specifically or wrongly.

No we cannot. You appear not to understand the concept that ANY term can be defined in any way whatsoever. NONE of the definitions, in your words can ever be, absolutely, specifically or wrongly

Any such discussion would be pointless to start

 

[KUMAR5]

I mentioned anticipated. It means, yet pending to know in science but logically there may be a mother or a father of all. Moreover, Unified Force is under check in science.

No no no. No organisms have any NATURAL RIGHTS OR ANYTHING ELSE NATURAL
RIGHT TO LIVE
RIGHT TO BE BIG
RIGHT TO BE GREEN

ANOTHER FALSEHOOD
THERE IS NO BALANCE IN NATURE TO MAINTAIN



No we cannot. You appear not to understand the concept that ANY term can be defined in any way whatsoever. NONE of the definitions, in your words can ever be, absolutely, specifically or wrongly

Any such discussion would be pointless to start

Ok. Try to think deeply with equanimity not with specificity.

 

[Michael 345]

From pseudoscience thread my post

KUMAR5 <<<<<------ me thinks from responses ----->>>>>> bot

No emotion - responses have mechanical feel

I think ditto here

The words are spelt correctly, questionable grammar (bot or someone with this as 10th language)

Example quote

Ok. Try to think deeply with equanimity not with specificity.

Really????

 

[KUMAR5]

From pseudoscience thread my post

KUMAR5 <<<<<------ me thinks from responses ----->>>>>> bot

No emotion - responses have mechanical feel

I think ditto here

Sorry.???

 

[Dywyddyr]

They have natural right to live, other can have natural need to kill. It does not make either odd. It also contribute to maintain nature's balance.

But it negates your earlier claim that "All live beings have naural right to life, grow...".
One of them has to die for the other to survive.

"Live & let live" is said. It suggests let live subject to live.

That doesn't support a "right" to live.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry.???

Dont you worry KUMAR5
The guys are just testing you to see if you can handle a bit of heat.
But they are successfully side tracking you.
So what can you tell me about the first point outlined in your OP.
I think actually you need to expand on all points to some degree and almost certainly define each and every term you refer to ...
Clearly before we can reduce anything to observable aspects the aspect of defining all terms you use is absolutely necessary.
Does that sound a reasonable approach to you.
Alex

 

[KUMAR5]

But it negates your earlier claim that "All live beings have naural right to life, grow...".
One of them has to die for the other to survive.


That doesn't support a "right" to live.

That does not nagate e natural right to live.. We have right to live.. If someone kill us, it does not mean we didn't had right to live..

 

[KUMAR5]

Dont you worry KUMAR5
The guys are just testing you to see if you can handle a bit of heat.
But they are successfully side tracking you.
So what can you tell me about the first point outlined in your OP.
I think actually you need to expand on all points to some degree and almost certainly define each and every term you refer to ...
Clearly before we can reduce anything to observable aspects the aspect of defining all terms you use is absolutely necessary.
Does that sound a reasonable approach to you.
Alex

Welcome. Btw, are all term I defined, not already explained in quite simple language? These need to be carefully understood with dedication.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Welcome. Btw, are all term I defined, not already explained in quite simple language? These need to be carefully understood with dedication.

I've got a feeling you're not going to be allowed to get your point across here.

Using 'god' and 'goddess' to explain stuff, is like the old fashioned idea of showing a cross to a vampire.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

That does not nagate e natural right to live.. We have right to live.. If someone kill us, it does not mean we didn't had right to live..

Hi bot

What's your view then on the unalienable rights which are granted and mentioned in the Declaration of Independence?

Unalienable refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away right?

Yet it happens all the time

Your move

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok. Try to think deeply with equanimity not with specificity.

I'll take my cue from you. I'll be logical and scientific.

By what scientific logic do you posit a 'prime goddess'?
By what scientific logic do you posit a 'prime gods'?